(10-04-2017 08:20 AM)morondog Wrote: SeaJay, sorry I hijacked your thread a bit. Any mod who's watching, please do feel free to split out the last few off-topic posts relating to this spat over medical efficacy of prayer. It doesn't really belong here.

That's ok, I found it interesting

It's all 'grist for the mill' as I the say

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde

(10-04-2017 06:47 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote: It's apparent the more one applies thoughtful consideration of what's being stated the more sees double standards to posit one's view. I feel confident if I stated that prayer cures people I would be bombarded with challenges to prove the claim and statements saying the effects of prayer are unfalsifiable yet am I the only one that questions the above claim? Again

Food for thought are these results of a poll of doctors: Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey,” the report notes, “is that a majority of doctors (55 percent) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous (45 percent do not).
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/12/28152/#sfz...Res7K6m.99

Polls of doctors huh? If you claim prayer cures disease, post evidence. There's a wealth of randomized controlled trials proving the efficacy of modern medical techniques. I'll admit my post was bait, and you took it. Please define for me a "miracle" in an unambiguous fashion.

ETA: And find for me ONE person provably "super-naturally" cured - and this means not just "we don't understand how" but "God did it".

Ok everyone just slow down and take a breath and go back thoughtfully to what has been said, after all this is the "thinking" atheist forum so let's reread and "think" through what has been claimed.

In post #386 moromdog states: As much as religion would love to be able to claim the same effectiveness as science, we cure more people wholesale in a week than have been cured by prayer in the last several thousand years.

If one applies logical reading comprehension what is being posited? Science is more effective than prayer in curing people of illnesses. Now apply logic - to compare any two things and state one is more effective than the other one would have to acknowledge this truth - both science and prayer are capable of curing people of illness. Secondly, as so often demanded here, and rightly so, is when a claim is made (science is more effective than prayer at curing people) the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Therefore morondog having made the claim bears the burden of proof to present evidence that prayer is indeed able to cure illness but that it is less effective that science.

That being said note, as previously stated, the proliferance of double standards. A claim is made by morondog, which promotes his agenda/belief that prayer cures illness but is less effective that science and no one challenges the claim yet in post #395 morondog demands that I sudmit evidence that prayer cures people, a claim he made to begin with. Huh? Oh, wait, now we have a back pedal that it was bait. OK ha ha I guess I'm a silly gullible theist.

With playtime over back to the proliferance of double standards. In post #394 I offered a "food for thought" link to the claims of a survey doctors, doctors presumably educated and accredited in their fields by the finest medical institutions of the land who stated "they" have seen "treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous" and then I'm burdened to provide proof of their claim, not my claim, and not only that but that the required evidence be substantiated with proof that "God", who is preemptively deemed not to even exist, preformed the miracle. WTF! Yes I did say that, read that again thinking it through and I don't know what else to say other that logic and reason be damned because I believe what I believe and I'll require evidence with peremeters irrationally designed to challenge my belief be it true or not.

As to the poll,remember I did not present the poll as proof nor evidence but simply as "food for thought" meaning nothing more than to present something that warrants consideration. I agree that as humans all are susceptible to a certain amount of bias. But if it's logical to dismiss something simply because it is presented by those with whom one disagrees then it would hold true and logical for everyone to object anything if it opposes one's position again, be it true on not.

Here's another poll presented as "food for thought": A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009 of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Results of the poll found that - just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Logically what are the options is one to do with this data if it doesn't fit one's beliefs?

One could simply dimiss it because of who conducted the poll and didn't like the results. Not very rational but possible.

One could argue the scientists supporting belief of a deity are doing so irrationally and without basis. If that were true that they were considered this illogical don't you think the American Association for the Advanvement of Science would cease to honor their membership?

One could say that only the 49% are right because as previously posted in this forum,the majority of scientist are atheist, by redifining what majority means.

As atheists I would be interested in how do some of you process the data presented by this poll. Thank you for your comments

(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote: If one applies logical reading comprehension what is being posited? Science is more effective than prayer in curing people of illnesses. Now apply logic - to compare any two things and state one is more effective than the other one would have to acknowledge this truth - both science and prayer are capable of curing people of illness. Secondly, as so often demanded here, and rightly so, is when a claim is made (science is more effective than prayer at curing people) the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Therefore morondog having made the claim bears the burden of proof to present evidence that prayer is indeed able to cure illness but that it is less effective that science.

So if I claim that science is more effective than windbag posts on a forum at curing illness, then I'm necessarily claiming that windbags on forums have some degree of medical relevance? God you're pathetic.

Pay attention: *you* took exception to *my* claim that science cures people more effectively than religion. *If* religion cures people of disease, *why* do people go to doctors in preference to priests? And I'll wager that you do too, Mr "Double standard".

So sure, I claim that science is more effective than religion, show me ONE person whom religion has cured of ANY disease, provably. You'd think you idiots would have found one in all your thousands of years. Whereas you can't deny that there are literally thousands of medical journals out there with demostrated rigourous proof that modern medicine is effective.

You dare to cry about double standards, but you can't prove a word of your wishy-washy bullshit. Sure, throw the "thinking" forum name in my face, you chose that name for yourself too.

Tell me true. Do you believe your God answers prayer?

Quote:That being said note, as previously stated, the proliferance of double standards. A claim is made by morondog, which promotes his agenda/belief that prayer cures illness but is less effective that science and no one challenges the claim yet in post #395 morondog demands that I sudmit evidence that prayer cures people, a claim he made to begin with. Huh? Oh, wait, now we have a back pedal that it was bait. OK ha ha I guess I'm a silly gullible theist.

With playtime over back to the proliferance of double standards. In post #394 I offered a "food for thought" link to the claims of a survey doctors, doctors presumably educated and accredited in their fields by the finest medical institutions of the land who stated "they" have seen "treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous" and then I'm burdened to provide proof of their claim, not my claim, and not only that but that the required evidence be substantiated with proof that "God", who is preemptively deemed not to even exist, preformed the miracle. WTF! Yes I did say that, read that again thinking it through and I don't know what else to say other that logic and reason be damned because I believe what I believe and I'll require evidence with peremeters irrationally designed to challenge my belief be it true or not.

As to the poll,remember I did not present the poll as proof nor evidence but simply as "food for thought" meaning nothing more than to present something that warrants consideration. I agree that as humans all are susceptible to a certain amount of bias. But if it's logical to dismiss something simply because it is presented by those with whom one disagrees then it would hold true and logical for everyone to object anything if it opposes one's position again, be it true on not.

Here's another poll presented as "food for thought": A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009 of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Results of the poll found that - just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Logically what are the options is one to do with this data if it doesn't fit one's beliefs?

One could simply dimiss it because of who conducted the poll and didn't like the results. Not very rational but possible.

One could argue the scientists supporting belief of a deity are doing so irrationally and without basis. If that were true that they were considered this illogical don't you think the American Association for the Advanvement of Science would cease to honor their membership?

One could say that only the 49% are right because as previously posted in this forum,the majority of scientist are atheist, by redifining what majority means.

As atheists I would be interested in how do some of you process the data presented by this poll. Thank you for your comments

Oh, more pew research polls of scientists If they can do good science then their religious beliefs are irrelevant. Show me one scientist who prays for data

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(05-04-2017 05:40 AM)SeaJay Wrote: EDIT: Thanks all very much for the considered and (quick!) responses. I am sorry that I cannot reply to every one of them fully or even at all (I think I'd go mad ) but I do appreciate them, and I read them. I also copy/paste posts and/or certain parts of posts into a word document too.

unfogged asked me why I believe there is a god and why it is the Christian God. I like that; straight to the point. I'll try and answer here (you might have encountered this post on another atheist website).

Fear is the key. Not sure if anyone expected that answer, but it's true. For the most part fear is the key. I mean, it's not just fear, I do have a belief it is true. But here's the situation:

I have major issues with Christianity, from slavery, brutality, misogynistic practices, the need for a human sacrifice, the threat of an eternal agonising afterlife for some, the need for any of this. But I am scared of being wrong. I have a real phobia about going to hell. I feel trapped and as I see it, there are only two ways out for me.

1. To be convinced there is no hell (not possible – as we cannot say either way for sure)

2. To, not believe. All I will say is that I have major doubts. I'm having a real crisis of faith.

I ask myself, if my thought processes were not inhibited by fear and anxiety, would I still believe? Well, having a Heavenly Father sounds great to me. Someone to love and care for you, and having the biggest and strongest Dad in the world is what every child inside us wants. Someone to pick you up every time you fall down, someone to tell you everything is going to be ok.

All that said, if I could push aside all concepts of Christianity and have a mind unfettered with Christian tradition and influences (all of them), would I still believe it was all true?

Truth is, I’m too anxious to even ask myself that, which in itself speaks volumes. I can relate to Pascal’s Wager.

I ask myself, why does an omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) creator, feel the need to create a torture chamber, where the wicked are sent to spend an eternity in unspeakable, unthinkable agony? Why not just utterly annihilate them? Not enough punishment? Ok, but why does there need to be any punishment in the first place? Surely an omnipotent and omniscient creator could just show us the error of our ways, teach us so we know why we did the things we did, and then we can all live in peace?

I see no point in it, but here is my problem:

Even if I do not see any point in it at all – it doesn’t mean it is not true. Sure it doesn't mean it is true, but that's where I am right now.

Do I only believe out of a fear of punishment? It’s probably not the ‘only’ reason, but it is a major part of it. Truth be told, I am not in a position to really answer that question yet.

I very probably will ask questions concerning biblical verses and such, but I assure you it is not to force my beliefs on anyone. As I always say, I really have no axe to grind and certainly have no agenda I want to push on anyone.

The reason for my questions (and questions to subsequent answers I may receive) is to really test what I believe, and why I believe. If my questions stand up to scrutiny, if I cannot have my faith torn down, then I will remain a Christian. Conversely, if I end up not believing because my beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny, then I will seriously question what I believe, in fact, I may not have that option because regardless of what I want to believe, the truth is the truth.

Thanks all

You may think you have a good reason for believing. You don't. You have a culturally biased reason for believing. You inherited it from people who didn't critically examine their reason for believing.

(10-04-2017 07:06 AM)morondog Wrote: Polls of doctors huh? If you claim prayer cures disease, post evidence. There's a wealth of randomized controlled trials proving the efficacy of modern medical techniques. I'll admit my post was bait, and you took it. Please define for me a "miracle" in an unambiguous fashion.

ETA: And find for me ONE person provably "super-naturally" cured - and this means not just "we don't understand how" but "God did it".

Ok everyone just slow down and take a breath and go back thoughtfully to what has been said, after all this is the "thinking" atheist forum so let's reread and "think" through what has been claimed.

In post #386 moromdog states: As much as religion would love to be able to claim the same effectiveness as science, we cure more people wholesale in a week than have been cured by prayer in the last several thousand years.

If one applies logical reading comprehension what is being posited? Science is more effective than prayer in curing people of illnesses. Now apply logic - to compare any two things and state one is more effective than the other one would have to acknowledge this truth - both science and prayer are capable of curing people of illness. Secondly, as so often demanded here, and rightly so, is when a claim is made (science is more effective than prayer at curing people) the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Therefore morondog having made the claim bears the burden of proof to present evidence that prayer is indeed able to cure illness but that it is less effective that science.

That being said note, as previously stated, the proliferance of double standards. A claim is made by morondog, which promotes his agenda/belief that prayer cures illness but is less effective that science and no one challenges the claim yet in post #395 morondog demands that I sudmit evidence that prayer cures people, a claim he made to begin with. Huh? Oh, wait, now we have a back pedal that it was bait. OK ha ha I guess I'm a silly gullible theist.

With playtime over back to the proliferance of double standards. In post #394 I offered a "food for thought" link to the claims of a survey doctors, doctors presumably educated and accredited in their fields by the finest medical institutions of the land who stated "they" have seen "treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous" and then I'm burdened to provide proof of their claim, not my claim, and not only that but that the required evidence be substantiated with proof that "God", who is preemptively deemed not to even exist, preformed the miracle. WTF! Yes I did say that, read that again thinking it through and I don't know what else to say other that logic and reason be damned because I believe what I believe and I'll require evidence with peremeters irrationally designed to challenge my belief be it true or not.

As to the poll,remember I did not present the poll as proof nor evidence but simply as "food for thought" meaning nothing more than to present something that warrants consideration. I agree that as humans all are susceptible to a certain amount of bias. But if it's logical to dismiss something simply because it is presented by those with whom one disagrees then it would hold true and logical for everyone to object anything if it opposes one's position again, be it true on not.

Here's another poll presented as "food for thought": A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009 of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Results of the poll found that - just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Logically what are the options is one to do with this data if it doesn't fit one's beliefs?

One could simply dimiss it because of who conducted the poll and didn't like the results. Not very rational but possible.

One could argue the scientists supporting belief of a deity are doing so irrationally and without basis. If that were true that they were considered this illogical don't you think the American Association for the Advanvement of Science would cease to honor their membership?

One could say that only the 49% are right because as previously posted in this forum,the majority of scientist are atheist, by redifining what majority means.

As atheists I would be interested in how do some of you process the data presented by this poll. Thank you for your comments

Meet Timothy Ray Brown a man that was cured of HIV and Lukemia. Timothy was diagnosed medically with these diseases and it was obvious that he would die if left untreated. So letting nature take it's course would have been lethal for him.

The doctors that treated him detailed exactly what they did and it's effects. This is great because it's possible to REPLICATE these methods and provide help to other people.

Prayer offers none of this, you pray and hope. If something happens, EVEN WHILE UNDER TREATMENT from a doctor for a diagnosed condition, a god will get the credit whether it was god or the medical treatment. Good luck on reproducing this alleged "cure" that would depend on unfalsifiable things like "god's will" or your intent while praying or being indistinguishable from medical treatment that they were under at the time.

I suppose since Timothy might have been gay, that your god would have let the HIV run it's course.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition

(10-04-2017 10:35 AM)SeaJay Wrote: I ask myself, if 4,000,000,000 scientists believed in a higher power, what would that prove?

Answer: That 4,000,000,000 scientists believed in a higher power. Other than that, absolutely nothing.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac

The following 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post:2 users Like The Organic Chemist's postVera (10-04-2017), kim (10-04-2017)